Thursday, February 13, 2014

Well, yes...

From U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn's ruling Tuesday explaining why he was striking down the portion of the state's ban on same-sex marriage and ordering that state officials recognize all marriages performed in other states.

For years, many states had a tradition of segregation and even articulated reasons why it created a better, more stable society. Similarly, many states deprived women of their equal rights under the law, believing this to properly preserve our traditions. In time, even the most strident supporters of these views understood that they could not enforce their particular moral views to the detriment of another's constitutional rights. Here as well, sometime in the not too distant future, the same understanding will come to pass.

Anyone seriously doubt him?

Posted at 04:38:50 PM

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You didn't mention that the state involved is *Kentucky.* Choke on that, Mitch McConnell.

@Pan: I believe McConnell is currently choking on the recent poll Louisville Courier-Journal results that show him losing the election.
He even claimed the results were fixed because the paper is liberal & hates him.

The Constitution addresses women's suffrage and racial equality directly. It says nothing about marriage. I predict we'll end up with a roughly 50/50 split among the states. Trying to predict what Kennedy will do is roughly as difficult as trying to predict the stock market, but my gut instinct tells me he won't want to go this far, and the other 8 Justices can be counted on to stay where they are. Any changes in the Court's composition could affect this obviously.

I write all this even though my personal view is to the left of where most conservatives are and, in some ways, even less restrictive than the liberal view. I think that marriage should be defined by the individual in any way he wants to define it, and government shouldn't be involved at all. But you know all that.

As interesting as this all is from a philosophical perspective, is this such a big deal practically speaking? Not really. It's close to the top of the list of issues that are interesting to debate but close to the bottom of the list of issues that have an impact on our daily lives.

As I wrote to my friend rayspace on an earlier thread, the real practical problem is that it leads us a little further down the path of the Internal Revenue Code meaning "Every man for himself." In other words, every group lobbying for special benefits. But we're pretty much there anyway so the marginal impact of the gay lobby getting theirs is tiny. I'm also not wild about Mom-and-Pop Flower Shop getting sued because Bill and Ted are denied their daisies at their Wiccan commitment ceremony but if Mom-and-Pop weren't spoiling for a fight themselves they could find a way to deny service without getting sued 95% of the time.

Anyway, it's interesting but mostly academic and it will come down to the whims of Justice Kennedy as most of our controversies do these days.

I was waiting for our favorite conservative to check in with the "Marriage is not defined in the Constitution" rational.

There are a lot of things not specifically defined in the Constitution that are defended and protected by our courts under individual/civil rights and privileges. Nice try, but that argument isn't valid.

I love when Greg pops by with that silly "marriage shouldn't be defined by the government!" screed. As if it will ever not be or that screed would be relevant to millions of Americans being denied their equal rights.

lexi, then you must be a white woman. A good rule for guys is never to talk to a white woman about her derriere, even complimentarily, and never talk to a black woman about her hair, even complimentarily. Much trouble can be avoided by adhering to that one.

I'm a bit uncomfortable about the Kansas bill that Occam's Razor brought to our attention. As I've said before, I think that freedom of contract and freedom of association should be valued over anti-discrimination laws, but when it comes to protected classes that battle is over and we ought not fight it again. When it comes to classes that aren't protected under the Constitution, I'm not wild about the idea that states should be targeting them specifically (even if I think they are within their rights legally).

It would be one thing if Kansas passed a law that said "a protected class for purposes of Kansas' anti-discrimination laws is limited to (list of Constitutionally-protected classes)." That would be enough to get the job done. But did they really have to go and target a specific group (i.e., homosexuals)? That seems a bit much for me.

My response to my dear friend LL Finn's comment above is similar to a discussion I had with a homosexual friend who challenged me on my views on gay "marriage." It also ties in nicely with the Kansas law.

After a civil enough discussion got us nowhere (actually it got him nowhere since he brought it up and ended up agreeing with some of my points if not the conclusion), I told him that he ought to be careful what he wishes for when it comes to government involvement in his relationship. The same government who can give you something (LL Finn calls it equal rights and I call it a special interest giveaway) can take things away from you too. The pendulum doesn't only swing one way and don't come crying to me when it's not going in your favor.

In prior decades, we came to an agreement on the treatment of religious, gender, disability, racial, and ethnic classes. Today, the two sides are so far apart we agree on nothing. One state can give you a benefit and another one can target you. Is it just the knuckle-dragging conservatives? Maybe but those kids wearing Che Guevara t-shirts are idolizing a leftist who ran homosexual concentration camps in Cuba. I'd prefer my chances with the Kansas legislature thank you very much.

When you get in bed with the government in exchange for benefits there can be unforeseen and unintended consequences. Just ask some of the big banks. What goes on in Kansas is none of my business but if this becomes a trend, don't say we didn't warn you.

Oregon will ask voters to decide on gay marriage and religious exemption by referendum.

"Oregon voters will likely face two questions about gay marriage when they go to the ballot this year: whether to become the 18th state to let same-sex couples wed, and whether the state should be the first to allow florists, cake makers and others to refuse to participate in these weddings on religious grounds."

Interesting because: "In Oregon and 20 other states, it is illegal to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation."

"I told him that he ought to be careful what he wishes for when it comes to government involvement in his relationship. The same government who can give you something can take things away from you too. The pendulum doesn't only swing one way and don't come crying to me when it's not going in your favor."

A few questions, Greg:

Have you decided that you'll permanently eschew legal marriage because of the hazard you've warned your friend about?

Do you advise friends, family, siblings to be careful of what they wish for when they reveal an interest in getting married?

Do you tell them not to come crying to you if they marry and things don't go well?

What do you think led to the Kansas law? If there wasn't all of this controversy about gay "marriage" do you think the Kansas law would have happened? Some governments providing benefits has led to others targeting the beneficiairies. If I were gay, I wouldn't trust any of them especially given the history of how they've been targeted. Speaking of history, it doesn't always move in the direction you'd like.

A last desperate attempt to stigmatize and ostracize gays by the anti-gay coalition. On the contrary, it will be our government that steps in and strikes down this law, as we're seeing as state by state laws restricting marriage to a man and a woman only are found unconstitutional. Without our "government" we'd be little better than Russia.

If I were the Christian religious right, I'd be worried that by creating laws that exempt the religious could lead to protection of practices by certain other religions many on the right would find quite alarming.

@Greg
"What do you think led to the Kansas law? If there wasn't all of this controversy about gay "marriage" do you think the Kansas law would have happened?"

And geez Baby, I wouldn't have to hit you if you would only remember your place.

You've fallen prey to the just-world hypotheses, Greg. The bigots and reactionaries, not their victims, are entirely to blame for the actions of the bigots.

And victim-blaming isn't just morally corrupt. For victims to accept that they are to blame would be a serious strategic error. The legal and social treatment of gay people in this country has never been better. Improvements that would have been unimaginable 60 years ago haven't come about because gay people kept their heads down to avoid offending their persecutors. But it's in the interests of persecutors to convince their victims that the best way to improve their lot is submission and surrender to the bigots. That's baloney.

To defeat the bigots, the reactionary persecutors must be morally called out, socially derided, beaten back at the ballot box and challenged in the courts until their views are no longer acceptable in polite company.

This is how it's done and the strategy has been stupendously successful. The Kansas legislation should be ridiculed as part of the ongoing effort to stigmatize the bigots. What I've read so far says that the legislation is not going to be enacted into law, but if by some chance it is enacted, it will be defeated in the courts, as it should be. And one more nail will have been driven into the coffin of anti-gay bigotry.

I'll take your second comment first because it perfectly illustrates a point I've been making. First of all, I agree with you that the religious right ought to be careful about the logical extension of the exemption they want for themselves. But that's close to what I'm talking about with gay "marriage." Gay "marriage" proponents ought to be careful about where their marriage equality arguments might lead and gays ought to have at least some concern about what it means for them.

Again, the Kansas religious right is seeking an exemption for itself because our system of laws is turning into every man or special interest group for himself. Get yourself a benefit or exemption, whether it's gay "marriage" or an exemption from a law, and don't worry about how it affects anyone else. I'm telling you what a farce it's becoming and you're only believing me when it applies to groups you don't like.

Regarding your first comment, what makes you think it's the last attempt and not the beginning of a trend? Because you like one and don't like the other? Why is our government being so generous to all of these special interests? Do you trust that trend to hold true in the future just because it has since roughly the 1960's?

I don't think you have enough respect for the pendulum to swing, for history to change course, and for governments to go from benign to threatening. You are using a very, very small sample size to construct your argument.

Respectfully, you are missing the point. I'm not blaming anyone for anything. I'm observing that actions can have unintended consequences whether it's ADM trying to get itself state subsidies, gays trying to get marriage benefits, religious people trying to get exemptions from laws, illegals pushing for citizenship, etc.

To be very clear, as I've written before, my position is that I applaud all of these groups for taking whatever they can because that's the way our system works these days. Every special interest group is out for itself and using the government to get stuff from taxpayers. I do the same thing when I use our byzantine tax laws to lower my effective rate to roughly that of a grocery store cashier.

If that's the system we want then by all means go and get yours. I happen to think it's terrible policy so don't expect me to vote for your special benefit but do expect me to use every legal strategy to avoid paying for it.

I think there is a better way, which involves a more neutral application of our laws and reserving the redistribution of income for people who really need it. I'll keep voting for that but, in the meantime, I'll keep playing by the rules we have.

My caution to all of these groups is to understand the potential unintended consequences whenever they push for something. ADM found out about that. Illegals are paying for pushing the envelope too fast, too soon. The jury is out on how the religious right and the gays will be affected.

In your last few paragraphs, I believe you are making the same mistake as Wendy. You aren't giving due respect to the twists and turns of history. Some people will be upset by the Kansas law and others will just shrug and say it's another example of a group trying to get something for itself. The strategy of yelling "bigotry" at every turn is not working and exhibit A is the Kansas law. People are becoming immune from criticism and they are looking out for themselves. All of this is evidence of the social fragmentation I've been talking about.

I guess anyone who fights the status quo going back decades can be considered a special interest group by a certain demographic which enjoyed all the freedoms and privileges once denied these, um, special interests.

There's a difference between ideas and politics following the swing of the pendulum, and the social changes that have a one-way momentum which affects historical change and cannot be reversed. I include discrimination against African Americans resulting from slavery, lesser status once held by women, and the denial of gays regarding social and personal rights. We've seen historical objections and abuse of privileges that followed the fights for recognition by blacks and women; we should not be surprised the same is happening to gays. This does not mean an eventual reversal towards rights fought for and achieved by any of my examples. It's really not possible unless our form of government, itself, changes.

I didn't miss your point and I've understood every argument you've ever presented on this subject. You missed my point. I was responding in that comment to the latest in your shapeshifting arguments against gay marriage. This time you argued that gay people should be afraid they could be added to a list for persecution if they marry, so they shoudn't wish for the right to marry. That's what I responded to.

I understand your other arguments. You've repeated them relentlessly in other threads. I find them patently fallacious. Every time you refer to "special rights," you're begging the question and mutilating the plain english meaning of word special, as if those demanding equal rights accept your false premise that they want something special rather than something merely equal under the law.

And the notion that the strategies for promoting marriage equality are failing or backfiring because "look-at-that-[doomed]-Kansas-legislation" is ludicrous in light of changes in law and public opinion over the last 50 years, and especially in the last 8-10 years. Talk about denial.

The doomed Kansas legislation reminds me of the bridge-keeper in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, issuing new threats until every last one of his limbs has been lopped off and he's a raging, impotent stump screaming more threats, as Arthur casually moves past him and continues on to his destination.

My arguments haven't shifted in the slightest. If gays want to pursue special privileges, they should feel free to do so, but understand that it encourages other special interest groups (e.g., the religious right) to assert privileges for themselves too. These privileges may not be favorable toward gays.

You can call my arguments fallacious but you haven't laid a glove on them even though I've given you ample opportunity. Look, there are all types of special rights that are available and most of the ones being sought by groups these days were given to other groups in the past. ADM wants in on benefits given to other Illinois corporations; gays want in on benefits given to married couples; the religious right in Kansas wants a special exemption; illegal aliens want status given to other illegals in the past. I see no difference in any of these situations except the group who is lobbying for a deal. All of these giveaways are directly or indirectly paid for by someone else. None of them have my sympathy or my vote because I believe we should be leveling the playing field, not encouraging new forms of welfare. Each time one group gets a new privilege, a bunch more lineup for theirs.

The difference between our views is that I'm willing to call out situations where those on "my side" are getting benefits from taxpayers and oppose them. I'm against corporate welfare, benefits for married couples, the mortgage interest deduction, churches not having to pay for water that they use, etc. When your side wants something that is going to cost money whether it's marriage benefits for gays or birth control subsidies, all of a sudden it's an "equal right." You are blinded by your own bias for the groups you support. That's ok and I admit many on the right are too. However, before you get wound up what is equal and what is special, you should take a deep breath and think about how this mentality that we should be handing out benefits to certain groups (a) encourages every group to maximize its benefits at the expense of others and (b) changes based on who is in power.

First, there is a difference between equality under the law and getting a privilege that some other group got before you. Where I draw the line between an equal right and a special right is that an equal right provides you the same legal protection as someone else, and a special right gives you a privilege at someone else's expense. Slavery is about equal rights. The aspect of marriage where couples get taxpayer benefits even though they can provide for themselves is all about special rights.

I think that some of the difference between treatment of blacks and women vs. treatment of gays has to do with what is being sought, some has to do with the era, and some has to do with the groups themselves.

But let's talk about what that means practically. Gays were rewarded for their vote by a liberal Democratic president and some Democratic legislators, governors and judges. Is it really too far-fetched to believe that conservative Republican politicians and judges will reward right wing religious groups in ways that don't favor gays? If a Republican president signs a law that stops requiring birth control coverage won't you consider that a reversal of progress for women? That scenario isn't far-fetched at all. I don't see a fundamental shift in basic rights occurring regardless of who is in power but I do see how rewarding special interest groups now could have consequences later.

Greg, marriage equality is NOT a "privilege" or a "special right," and it does not come at anyone else's "expense." What "expense" is involved here? Paper and ink for the marriage license? The clerk's time?

Your argument seems to be that we should not grant equal--yes, equal, not "special"--rights today because they could get taken away tomorrow. That makes no sense, either morally or practically. The "pendulum" you keep referring to is actually a steamroller, and anti-gay bigotry is squarely in front of it.

The expense numbers that I've seen range anywhere from $900 million (a CBO estimate from '09) to a slight positive effect. The CBO tax numbers seem a bit optimistic to me because they predict a slight revenue increase but that's using static, rather than dynamic, analysis and doesn't anticipate second earners reducing their incomes as actual married couples do.

Overall, I doubt the financial impact is all that much (even $900 mil. over a period of years is a drop in the bucket) but my default position is to vote against new spending. This doesn't seem worth it to me but that's just my vote.

Also, let's not get overly bogged down by the terminology on what a "special right" vs. an "equal right" is because it's all in the eye of the beholder. I apply the same analysis to corporations seeking special tax exemptions when they promise jobs, etc. These corporations would argue that they are seeking equal rights because a lot of other corporations have received similar handouts (but not all have), just as gay couples are seeking similar handouts to what married couples get (but not all couples receive). It's all the same to me - just another lobby looking for a handout - which our system encourages more and more these days.

That's fine. I agreed with you in opposing the Kansas law because I disagree with special interest groups getting special privileges for themselves (in this case, an exemption for the religious right) as I explained. We can have our opinions on how the pendulum does or doesn't work but let's acknowledge agreement that the Kansas law was bad policy.

Again, don't get me wrong here; I harbor no ill will towards the wealthy, or the big corporations, or the gays, or the religious right, or anyone who tries to use the government to get something for itself. I get that it's how the system works and I respect the talent of whatever lobby carries the day. I won't vote to help them out, especially when it's not in my interest as a taxpayer, but I also won't vote to see them targeted unnecessarily.

Correct. There wasn't a handout attached to what they were looking for. I do oppose affirmative action and reparations, however, because they impose a cost that I don't feel responsible for paying.

Like it or not, there is a taxpayer cost to giving marriage benefits to gays. That's the part of the law to which I object. Arguing that it's equal because married couples also get a benefit (that I don't think they should get) is the same as a corporation arguing that it's denied equal treatment because it doesn't get a benefit (subsidy, tax break) that another corporation is getting. I'm not interested in paying for that either. Again, who is lobbying for the benefit doesn't interest me and I congratulate any lobbying group on getting what they can get. I'll vote against almost every time.

We are not talking about corporations, Greg. (And no, I don't think they're people.) We are talking about living, breathing human beings who, for no other reason than sheer bigotry, are being denied the privileges and rights afforded to other human beings who find a partner to cherish.

Framing opposition to basic human rights in the language of lobbies and subsidies and tax breaks is not as offensive as framing it in the language of hellfire and the wrath of God. But it is offensive.

It doesn't begin to be as offensive as having to pay handouts to people who can afford things for themselves. Cherish whatever you want; just don't ask me to subsidize it. I don't care what anyone else does as long as we can agree to leave each other alone.

The comparison to corporate handouts doesn't do it for you? I'll frame it a different way then.

Renters argue that they are being denied equal treatment under the law because they don't get to deduct rent while mortgagees get to deduct interest on their mortgages. I don't support them because I don't agree with the mortgage interest deduction in the first place. I have nothing against the renter lobby; I'm just not interested in giving them the benefit they want.

No analogy is exact but what all these things have in common is that a lobbying group is trying to get legislation passed that will have the effect of getting income redistributed to them. I'm against that and I don't really care which special interest group we're talking about. In this context, corporations, renters, and gays are all the same to me.

Greg: Gays are not "a lobbying group." They are human beings who are trying to get equal treatment. No one is asking you to "subsidize" anything or "give them" any "benefit." The most they ask of you is to support them, or at least stay out of the way, as they fight for their rights.

Are we going to keep on until this post is pushed off the first page? Greg, I swear, when you're on your deathbed, try to notify me or one of the other liberal posters. We'll put up a comment and you'll come back from the dead to reply to it.

Then I'll end it with this comment and give you the last word. I'm all for staying out of the way as I've written a million times. Whether someone forms a union with someone of the same gender, a different gender, two people of the same or different genders, or a mountain goat, I consider it all the same. I really don't care and I will leave them alone.

The government can call anything a "marriage" and it doesn't matter to me. I don't look to the government to define things for me. I want the government to leave people alone too.

However, if a law change provides monetary benefits, those benefits have to come from somewhere. The government gets its revenues from taxpayers so it much come from us. As a taxpayer, I AM being asked to contribute to the subsidies, benefits, or whatever you want to call them. As most married couples and gaymarried couples receive benefits due to their status, the money for their benefits has to come from taxpayers.

If there is a law proposed that gives taxpayer benefits to all couples, I'll vote against it. If there is a law proposed that gives taxpayer benefits to only one type of couple, I'll vote against it even if other couples are already getting the same benefit. And I'll vote "no" even if the benefits aren't the main purpose of the law. Same goes for corporations, renters, or any special interest group. I don't make any distinctions between any of those groups, which is evidence that I'm not biased.

I don't know how much simpler I can make this. I don't care what anyone does as long as they leave others alone.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.